Judicial Nominations on the Minds of Americans in the Voting Booth
More than two-fifths (41%) of actual voters said they considered the presidential candidates’ potential judicial nominees in their list of “top five” issues when casting their votes this week.

Actual Voters Prefer Judicial Restraint
By a margin of more than 2-to-1, actual voters preferred the President nominate judges and justices who “believe that their roles as judges is solely to evaluate whether a law or lower court ruling is in line with the constitution” rather than those who “believe that their roles as judges is not simply to review the law as it is written and not take into account their own viewpoints and experiences” (67% vs. 24%).

American courts, on both the state and federal level, are playing an increasingly visible role in deciding issues of enormous importance. Using the theme of this year’s Convention, The People and the Judiciary, the Federalist Society will examine the role of the “least dangerous branch.” How, and by whom, should the judges who populate these various courts be selected? And for what period of time, and under what conditions, should judges be retained? Should their decisions be subject to review, revision and even reversal by the populace, or perhaps by the peoples’ elected representatives? And how can standards of judicial conduct be determined, monitored, and enforced, without impinging on judicial independence? Our four plenary panel sessions and various addresses will answer these and other questions.

An impressive lineup of speakers, starting with Attorney General Mukasey and Justice Scalia.